People v. Yanaga
58 Cal.App.5th 619
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2020Background
- Yanaga was convicted of second-degree murder with a true firearm enhancement (Pen. Code §12022.53(d)); original sentence was 15 years-to-life plus a consecutive 25 years-to-life enhancement.
- After the California Supreme Court directed reconsideration in light of SB 620 (which amended §12022.53(h) to permit striking firearm enhancements in the interest of justice), this court remanded for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to decide whether to strike the enhancement.
- At resentencing a different judge declined to strike the enhancement and expressly refused to consider Yanaga’s post‑sentencing rehabilitative conduct in prison, believing she could consider only information that was before the original sentencing judge.
- Yanaga had submitted evidence of prison rehabilitation (chaplain laudatory chronos, program completion certificates, mentoring and service program participation).
- The Court of Appeal held the resentencing judge misunderstood the scope of her discretion by excluding post‑sentencing conduct, and remanded for a new hearing at which such conduct and other relevant factors may be considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the resentencing court may consider defendant’s post‑sentencing prison conduct when deciding to strike a §12022.53 enhancement on remand | People: decision should be based on facts as of original sentencing | Yanaga: court may consider post‑sentencing conduct and other developments on remand | Held: Resentencing court may consider post‑sentencing conduct; exclusion was error |
| Whether the judge’s refusal to consider post‑sentencing conduct was harmless | People: even if considered, court would not have stricken enhancement | Yanaga: judge’s misunderstanding of discretion requires remand unless record clearly shows same outcome | Held: Not harmless; remand required because judge lacked informed discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gutierrez, 58 Cal.4th 1354 (a sentencing court unaware of the scope of its discretion requires remand unless the record clearly shows the same result)
- Dix v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 442 (on remand for resentencing the court may consider circumstances arising after original sentence)
- People v. Brady, 162 Cal.App.3d 1 (postconviction behavior is relevant on resentencing; probation report useful)
- People v. Pearson, 38 Cal.App.5th 112 (remand under SB 620 is not a blank slate; court presumed to have considered relevant sentencing factors)
- People v. Arredondo, 21 Cal.App.5th 493 (§12022.53(h) relief may apply on resentencing and allows consideration of factors at time of resentencing)
- People v. Robbins, 19 Cal.App.5th 660 (§12022.53(h) may be applied where sentence was not final when subdivision became effective)